Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Lady Dragon]

The original question of this thread was do you think They tried to balance 1st edition not was it balanced. Of course it wasn't balanced,but that's another issue.

All of the elite classes were very unbalanced, with the ordinary ones even barbarians and of course all of the oriental classes were as well ( In fact I think OA's material became the basis for most 2nd edition changes)

Also OA was a late 1st edition book that may have been a practice book for the next edition the fact that although Gary's name appears as the author on the cover David Cook was probably the primary author of that book and he wrote 2nd edition as well.

As for Drow they were consiered monsters in first edition and monsters were not allowed in the "official rules" so whether they were balanced is not an issue.

And of course the perfect power party in 1st edition differed depending on what level your party was. Low levels needed multiclassed elves high levels needed magic-users.

But again as I said earlier The whole process was new I don't think he fully understood the principles of game balance like we do 32 years later. So ultimately I think he tried to put some balance in but just didn't really know how to do it right.

As for forth edition is it balanced I suppose. Is it better than all its predessors, well.....

And although I understand why balance is important it's not the only thing in a game.

 

[AllisterH]

Again, I'm pretty sure Gygax didnt intend for 3d6 to be the actual default rolling method.

From the 1e PHB

The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no FEWER than two ability characteristics"

No way no how does 3d6 net you that score on average. Hell, Avg score is 10.5 with a std deviation of 3 meaning that 67% of rolls will not even hit the 15 mark.

Hell, even 4d6 drop 1 on average will net you scores of 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 9 if my brute force computations are right (simulate 1000 rolls and see what the results are).

There's something very, very weird in the rolling method recommended as neither 3d6 or 4d6 drop 1 are good methods if you want to play the game as Gygaxm recommends.

 

[Remathilis]

Again, I'm pretty sure Gygax didnt intend for 3d6 to be the actual default rolling method.

From the 1e PHB



No way no how does 3d6 net you that score on average. Hell, Avg score is 10.5 with a std deviation of 3 meaning that 67% of rolls will not even hit the 15 mark.

Hell, even 4d6 drop 1 on average will net you scores of 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 9 if my brute force computations are right (simulate 1000 rolls and see what the results are).

There's something very, very weird in the rolling method recommended as neither 3d6 or 4d6 drop 1 are good methods if you want to play the game as Gygaxm recommends.

We used Method XVIII: roll 4d6, drop the lowest around 7 or 8 times, re-rolling any ones, and setting an 18 into Str (warriors, roll % and re-roll any roll below 50%), Dex (rogues), Int (wizards) or Wis (Priests) as needed.

We found it usually worked.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't think the thief was intended to be such a generally good player choice as a fighter, cleric or magic-user, especially for frequent play. One can recruit a thief as henchman, unless one is a paladin. Then again, "should any player want to be one," a hobbit fighter/thief might be more attractive than a level-capped fighter.

(Note that halflings don't get the one-level lift that dwarves and elves get in AD&D. Opportunities to exceed the old limit even with high strength are so limited that only tallfellows with an 18 on the dice start able to reach 5th. For them to reach 6th, or for stouts to reach 5th, requires somehow exceeding the racial maximum!)

Given the same x.p., a thief is a level ahead of a fighter at low levels, or three ahead at high levels. That doesn't make it generally as "powerful" in any clear way -- and I don't think it any coincidence that it's the one class in which all the standard demihumans except half-orcs -- who substitute assassin -- get unlimited advancement. (Half-elves also get druid.)

The basic problem is that the thief's functions tend to be Plan B.

You can give a thief of any level a 100% chance to pick a lock, simply by allowing repeated attempts until success (greater expertise translating thus into greater speed). It's still preferable to open a lock with the key.

A thief can climb a wall with a chance of falling and breaking his neck -- or anyone can do it more safely with proper equipment (such as rope).

Why try to remove a trap, at risk of getting hurt, when you can instead set it off while clear? Why not bypass it altogether? Obviously, there are sometimes going to be significant answers to those questions -- but too often, among poor players, it's just, "Duh. I dunno."

For them, the thief was created. Well, actually I think it was created for players who said, "If only we could find out that a locked chest is full of copper before we go to the trouble of hauling it back to town."

You mean without removing the hinges? "Yeah, that takes time -- even more if the hinges are hidden -- and makes noise. Smashing is sometimes faster, but leaves the chest useless. And those metal chests are a real drag. Then there are the occasional locked doors and portcullises. And traps! Poisoned needles and spring blades are bad enough, but damn poison gas!"

A magic-user can cast knock, and a cleric can cast find traps. "Yeah, but those are second level spells. The m-u in particular has a limited supply, and none at all before third level." The supply is even more limited in AD&D than in the older game.

"Right, so it would be neat if we could get a little edge in that department." If we come across three chests, and 3rd-level spell-casters can deal with only one, then about a 33% chance with some other method would be about the same ...

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think the thief was intended to be such a generally good player choice as a fighter, cleric or magic-user, especially for frequent play.

Its this mindset that reminds me why I no longer play pre-2000 versions of D&D...

Older D&D is littered with all sorts of hidden "gotchas!" that seem powerful (or merely "viable") that turn out to be hoses. Druids (and monks) for example, seem fine until name level; then your leveling becomes tied solely to social-promotion and ritual combat. Likewise; Demi-humans seem greatly powerful until you realize few, if any, ever reach name level due to level-limits. Its also no secret magic-users tend to dominate the game in high-level play (with clerics being no slouch either).

Say what you want about Gygax's notion of "balance" the one thing I've always seen as a liability to the game was these weird "artificial" limits to character longevity; why get attached to your druid/assassin/elf PC when he's going to retire after X level because he can no longer advance and your left in the dust? I guess that explains why Greyhawk is known for its human wizards and their lackeys!

While never perfect, the one thing I applaud 3e for was TRYING to make up the perceived imbalance between classes like this by removing level limits, strengthing some classes (like thief/rogue) and attempting to make such choices viable, if not always optimal.

Because why should the guy pretending fling fireballs have more fun than the guy pretending to be an elf or the girl who wants to pick NPC's pockets?

 

[Ariosto]

The game is largely what one makes of it.

If you want to gain levels most rapidly, then the druid beats the thief up to 11th. On the other hand, the thief attains "name" level sooner -- and does not hit the druid's ceiling. On the gripping hand, starting his own gang means starting a war to the death.

If you want an especially sneaky scout character, then an elf or halfling (especially one with infravision) -- not in metal armor -- is a good choice. If you want a non-human (not part-human) with unlimited advancement, then a thief is the only choice.

(The exception to resurrection used to be halflings, but in AD&D it's elves and half-orcs -- worth noting if your career plan includes getting killed.)

Dwarves have a racial ability (specified in AD&D as having a 50% chance) to detect traps involving pits, falling blocks and other stonework. Gnomes have 70% to detect "unsafe walls, ceilings or floors".

The thief's function, per the PHB, "pertains to relatively small mechanical devices such as poisoned needles, spring blades, and the like".



Gauntlets of Dexterity (.06%), Gauntlets of Swimming and Climbing (C, F, T, .09%), Boots of Elvenkind (0.18%), a Cloak of Elvenkind (0.27%), a Ring of Invisibility (.35%) ... Yes, there are magic items that let their possessors do more or less some things a thief can do. Note, however, that they serve to enhance a thief's capabilities! Given their rarity, the advantage -- should one aim to undertake such adventures as those treasures would facilitate -- of having a thief before (as well as after) acquiring any, should be clear enough.

"Optimization" isn't everything, if one has the temperament to roll dice for ability scores in the first place. Yeah, someone else might start with a higher score than your best, or with a higher average. Odds are, someone else has! So, maybe you just happen to have fun playing a human thief.

Having fun, whatever that means to you, should be enough in a game form that otherwise has no set conditions for "winning". (A tournament scenario is something else.) That very personal objective seems to be the most important thing by far, and may find different outlets in different characters.

Those AD&Ders who especially enjoy playing thieves (or magic-users, or monks, or halflings, or the allegedly "plain Jane" human fighter, or what have you) could tell of memorable exploits to make not only the day but a player's career. I have no doubt that they are out there because, from what I have seen, the class has never ceased to be represented.

As with the magic-user or illusionist -- as, really, with any character of any class -- what matters most is what you make of it. Some are pretty easy to play moderately well, with less of a dynamic range beyond that. Others both call for and reward greater skill, or by default leave more to chance.

 

[Ariosto]

Its this mindset that reminds me why I no longer play pre-2000 versions of D&D...

It's not for everyone, obviously.

But neither is either of WotC's games.

I think one reason Unearthed Arcana seems so unbalancing is that it really is leaning toward new balances tailored to different modes of play. My guess is that a Gygaxian second edition, while not quite sharing the WotC ethos, would have been better suited to the kind of game many people already were playing. It probably would also have continued the Bigger! More! trend, front-loading more chrome than the actual (post-Gygax) Second Edition -- with thinner "core" books and a long line of supplements -- did.

Its also no secret magic-users tend to dominate the game in high-level play (with clerics being no slouch either).

It's odd that you say it's "also no secret" after going on about "all sorts of hidden 'gotchas'!" The PHB clearly states:

Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak.

How is anything else of that sort "hidden", pray tell? I don't think it's necessary to see anything in the DMG to make a fair appraisal. Certainly everything you mentioned about druids, monks and demi-humans is laid out plainly in the PHB.

How about 3e, eh? Was it really a "gotcha" to find out that removing all the burdens AD&D had laid upon them made spell-casters really, really top dogs -- and not with such a long, hard way to the top, either?

Say what you want about Gygax's notion of "balance" the one thing I've always seen as a liability to the game was these weird "artificial" limits to character longevity; why get attached to your druid/assassin/elf PC when he's going to retire after X level because he can no longer advance and your left in the dust?

Sure, after how many years? And really, who says that such an extraordinary individual can go no further? Did you miss the bit about "tallfellows that somehow obtain 18 strength"? Check out the pre-generated characters for the Giants-Drow tournament modules. If memory serves, some of those break not only the limits in the PHB (which was published around the same time) but even those of the UA (not yet even a twinkle in Gary's eye). There are probably more examples elsewhere. In D&D, what is impossible? Where there's a will, there is probably a way (and it probably involves a perilous quest).

Anyway, there is plenty more to do than rack up levels -- and indeed the game was designed to get into matters of greater importance on the stage of history. Go ahead and play 17th-, or 27th-, or 57th-, or 107th-level characters, if that's your cup of tea. Except for rare sessions, that has not held much appeal for players of my acquaintance.

Heck, isn't 3e (which so many people complain about playing past 10th) capped at 20th level, and 4e at 30th?

Go ahead and take off the limits if you want! Why don't the elves rule the world? What does a druid do after burning through the levels in UA? One might add a "hidden imam" assassin HD and more levels, but ...

How much further is it really worthwhile to go? The magic-user's spell-casting maxes out at 29th level (7.5 million experience points). I have most often seen characters retire before or at about the same 1.5 million as for the PHB assassin or druid. That would be a Wizard (14th); Master Thief (16th or 17th); a Lord (13th); a High Priest (14th or 15th). Characters other than thieves have pressed on to 16th, 17th or 18th level, but rarely in my experience. I have heard of characters of higher levels, but don't recall offhand seeing one (played all the way from 1st, or even having started at 4th).

The levels past 14th or so seem to figure mainly in the persons of NPCs -- mainly villains of such might as to challenge a whole party of PCs and threaten a world (or several) with Dark-Lord-ish dooms. (30th is "high level" even for the gods in D&D/L&L, but they tend to have far more hit points than that would suggest!)

"Different strokes", though!

The really fundamental thing to understand is that AD&D was not designed for the kind of campaign in which anyone is "forced" to keep playing a character. A lot of things get broken when you shove them into the context of a campaign limited to a single monolithic party of characters advancing through time, space and levels in lockstep. If you are allowed only one character per campaign, and get Hobson's choice of playing that character -- perhaps on an adventure determined by the DM, no less -- or not playing at all ... then it is no wonder that rules designed for quite a radically different game are less than satisfactory.

That whole game form, right from first premises, is unsatisfactory if what one really wants is what 4e is designed to provide. With 3e, you get a transitional form that is either the best or the worst of both worlds (probably depending on whom you ask).

 

[Treebore]

First off, read my sig.

Now not only did Gary and crew do their best to write as well balanced a game as they could at the time, but he also expected us to use our own judgement as our games grew and progressed.

Many of us did, because many, if not all, wrote house rules to fix things we found to be broken during our game experiences.

So Gary and crew knew very well their rules set was not perfect and needed further adjudication on an individual basis, which is why they wrote what is in my sig.

So not only did they do their best to "balance" 1E, but after 25 years I am more convinced than ever that they did a pretty good job, considering they were the first to ever try to do so with a game sold on such a scale.

Sure, people can sit here 30+ years later and claim they could have done better, but thats a safe claim to make since they can never prove it.

Plus Gary and company never, ever, for one minute, or even a second, tried to make the classes balanced between one another.

They knew the mage would eventually become the most powerful PC. They knew the Thief pretty much sucked in combat. They knew that when it came to pure thump the fighter was the best in pretty much every situation, especially when magic was "dead" for whatever reason.

I think people had a problem with running 1E for many reasons. In my experience the biggest was that DM's didn't know that part of maintaining balance was to also know what each and every spell did. That way they knew what could negate those scrying spells, stop teleportation, or to make one single magic item with one 6th level spell in it that would allow a fighter to kill any spell caster once they got in range.

So yes, the game was far from being perfectly balanced, but it had a lot more balance to it than many seem willing to give it credit for. It was certainly the best for its time, and some of its bigger flaws are made even more obvious by decades of exposure to other game mechanics.

Todays games are built on identifying the mistakes of the past and figuring out ways to do it better.

I recently went back and played 1E for a few sessions. Yes, it has some things that still rub me the wrong way. You know what? With all the games I have ran and played in since I last ran 1E 20+ years ago, I can go back and house rule 1E better than I ever did before, and make it run a heck of a lot better than it ever did back in the day.

I imagine every one who visits these boards and used to also play 1E at one point could also do the same.

How good of a game do you think you could make it be today?

 

[Votan]

I recently went back and played 1E for a few sessions. Yes, it has some things that still rub me the wrong way. You know what? With all the games I have ran and played in since I last ran 1E 20+ years ago, I can go back and house rule 1E better than I ever did before, and make it run a heck of a lot better than it ever did back in the day.

Not to try to be a Grognard, but the old rules hold up surprising well, if played as intended. It's remarkable how nic the system runs with a lot fewer pages (abd how wonderful the 1st Ed DMG is as a rulebook).

Sure, there have been some nice advances since then but it is interesting how robust the underlying system is . . . and how easy to house rule. The higher complexity of later systems actually makes it easier to knock things out of balance. The high threat level makes it hard for any character to really try and do everything themselves and there are some really nice options.

Best of all, the classes seem to be fun to play and the focus was on that much more than making surte every character was equal. In that respect, I still think we could learn a lot from the older system.

I reread my 1st Ed books tonight and it really is surprising how fast it is to read and how easily things fit together.

 

[Lanefan]

A few things...

Minor nitpick: Isn't a Thief's backstrike damage (with a longsword) defined as 1d8 x 2 rather than 2d8?

In my experience, it was usually in retrospect that players realized how gypped certain classes were. Wizards and thieves usually had a short life span, but were almost universally chosen by new players. Players that wanted to play for the long term usually chose a fighter, cleric, or some variant of either. Or, they would roll up a wizard or thief, die, then reroll a cleric or fighter.

Long-term thieves and wizards were played by casual players. Sometimes they were there, sometimes they weren't. But it didn't matter much, since their usefulness was so limited anyway. They did add plenty of flavor, though.

From 28+ years of these games (all 1e-based), these are the classes of the 10 characters with the longest adventuring careers (measured by number of adventures):

1. Assassin (!)
2. Magic-user
3. Fighter
4. Cleric
5. Fighter
6. Cleric
7. Magic-user
8. Magic-user/Druid*
9. Fighter/Thief
10. Illusionist

* - probably impossible using 1e RAW; however, we're a lot more flexible with allowable multi-class combinations.

3-and-a-half of the top 10 look like wizard-types to me. And 1-and-a-half are rogue-types...

The really fundamental thing to understand is that AD&D was not designed for the kind of campaign in which anyone is "forced" to keep playing a character. A lot of things get broken when you shove them into the context of a campaign limited to a single monolithic party of characters advancing through time, space and levels in lockstep. If you are allowed only one character per campaign, and get Hobson's choice of playing that character -- perhaps on an adventure determined by the DM, no less -- or not playing at all ... then it is no wonder that rules designed for quite a radically different game are less than satisfactory.

A highly salient point. The assumed-at-design-level party makeup and turnover rate in 1e is vastly different than in 3-4e; obviously, this affects the end-product game system. 1e assumed a large party, with characters joining, leaving, dying, retiring, etc. on a somewhat regular basis. 3e and 4e both assume a small tight party that as far as possible keeps the same members.

Part of this runs into an even deeper 1e assumption: that the players in a given campaign might also not remain constant, and the campaign might outlast any one of them (except, of course, the DM). 3-4e seem to expect that the players who start a campaign will stick around for the year or two it takes to finish it.

In my own experience I've noticed a huge difference between what I call "linear" campaigns (one continuing party, usually because the DM will not or cannot run a second game, sometimes with "lockstep" mechanics as noted by Ariosto) and multi-party campaigns; the party dynamics in the linear ones are sometimes quite contrived, and in some cases stilted, as if a character does not fit with the party there is nowhere else for it to be played. The multi-party campaigns seem more fluid; turnover - and thus, in-party change - can be achieved simply by characters switching parties.

The rules of all editions so far have been designed for the linear campaign type. Sometime, I'd love to see a DMG delve into ideas on how to manage a multi-party campaign.

I'm rambling, so if anything above does not parse please let me know and I'll try again.

Lanefan